DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Desein Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3488/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69554 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Double taxation relief; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 139(5); 148; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2008-09 DCIT, VS . DESEIN PVT. LTD., CIRCLE 10 (1), DESEIN HOUSE, NEW DELHI. GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI. (PAN AAACD0120H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAV A, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHWANI TANEJ A, SHRI ROHAN KHORE, ADVOCATE ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS IMPUGNED THE FIRST APPEL LATE ORDERS ON THE COMMON GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALL OWING THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,04,748/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 AND RS. 85,87,962/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS PER PROVISIONS O F SECTION 155(14) OF THE ACT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 155(14) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 30.10.200 7 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,70,60,011/- AND CLAIMED TDS CREDIT FOR RS. 94 ,00,697/- ONLY. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 27.7.2009 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 REQUESTING FOR ADDITIONAL TDS CREDIT OF RS. 20,04,748/- AND CLAIMED REFUND O F THE ABOVE AMOUNT WITH INTEREST. THE DETAILS OF TDS CREDIT CLAIMED IN THE 154 APPLICATION ARE AS UNDER :- S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. 427013/- 2. BHUSHAN STEEL & STRIPS LTD. 93640/- 3. INDO RAMA PETROCHEMICALS 482460/- 4. INDO RAMA PETROCHEMICALS 92565/- 5. MPPGCL 31641/- 6. MPPGCL 31641/- 7. MPPGCL 31066/- 8. KESHAV POWER (P) LTD. 814722/- TOTAL 20,04,748/- 4. THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 11.5.2011 HA D REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR FURTHER REFUND OF RS. 20,04,748/-. AGGRIEVED TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS GIVEN RELIEF. ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 3 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESS EE HAD E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 3.10.2008 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,82 ,75,050/- AND CLAIMED TDS CREDIT FOR RS. 3,69,85,737/- ONLY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 18.9.2009 AND CLAIMED A HIGHER TDS CREDIT OF RS. 4,55,73,699 AND THUS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TDS FOR A FURTHER SUM OF RS. 85,87,962/- (RS. 4,55,73,699 RS. 3,69,85,737/-) IN ITS REVISED RET URN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 ON 4.1.2011 REQUESTING FOR ADDI TIONAL TDS CREDIT OF RS. 85,87,962/- AND FILED A REMINDER ON 11.3.2011. ON 1 0.5.2011 THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REFUND FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT BEFO RE THE CIT-IV. THE AO REJECTED THE 154 APPLICATION DATED 10.5.2011. THE A O DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF REVISED RETURN ON THE BASIS THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT FILED IN TIME. THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE REFUN D OF RS. 2,34,11,990/-. 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESEE WENT IN FIRST APPE AL AND GOT RELIEF. 7. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THE LD. SR. DR HA S BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. SR. DR TRIED TO JUSTIFY T HE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 154 O F THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALR EADY RECEIVED FULL AMOUNT OF REFUND ALONGWITH INTEREST AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 UNDISPUTEDLY THE ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 4 REVISED RETURN CLAIMING MORE REFUND FILED WAS NONES T SINCE ORIGINAL RETURN IN THAT YEAR WAS NOT FILED ON TIME. 8. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIF Y THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT THE WHOLE OBJECT OF THE LEGISL ATURE UNDER THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT IS TO MAKE JUST ASSESSMENT AND THE A PPELLATE AUTHORITY IS FULLY EMPOWERED TO DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE JUST ASSESSMENT EVEN IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURN DESPIT E THIS FACT THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT FILED IN TIME. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTIO N ON THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 155(14) OF THE ACT AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED THESE STATUTORY PROVISION WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FIELD U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND DENYING THE REFUND CLAIMED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND OF THE PRESENT APPEALS IS FULL Y COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, (2013) 29 TA XMANN.COM 317 (DELHI) 2. GLORIC INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. DDIT (INTERNATI ONAL TAXATION), (2009) 120 TTJ (DEL) 667 3. CIT VS. DIGITAL GLOBAL SOFT LTD. (2013) 35 4 ITR 489 (KARNATAKA) ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 5 9. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 155(14) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED H EREUNDER :- (14) WHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEA R OR IN ANY INTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION(1 ) OF SECTION 143 FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199 HAS NOT BEEN GIV EN ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 203 WAS NOT FILED WITH THE RETURN AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH CERTIFI CATE IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INCOME IS ASSESSABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AMEND THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR ANY INTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 SHAL L, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY THERETO. PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY UNLESS THE INCOME FROM WHICH THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUC TED HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10. IN THE APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 4.1.201 1, THE ASSESSEE HAD REFERRED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 155 (14) AND HAD ALSO INTI MATED THAT INCOME FROM WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN RESPO NSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THAT AS TO WHETHER TDS CREDIT FOR RS. 20,04,748/- WAS AVAILABL E IN FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEES ANNUAL TAX STATEMENT U/S 203AA OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, THE ANSWER OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THAT FORM NO. 26AS HAD COME I NTO EFFECT SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE IT WAS N OT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 6 TO VERIFY WHETHER CREDIT FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS . 20,04,748/- WAS AVAILABLE OR NOT IN THE ASSESSEES ANNUAL TAX STATEMENT U/S 203A A OF TH E I.T. ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRO VISIONS LAID DOWN U/S 155(14) ARE CLEAR AND SELF CONTAINED AND THUS THE L D. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,04,748/- IN THE ASSESSEES ANNUAL TAX STATEMENT U/S 203AA OF THE I.T. ACT AND ACCORDINGLY GRANT REFUND WITH INTEREST TO THE ASSES SEE. HE DIRECTED FURTHER TO THE AO TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR TDS CREDIT OF RS. 20,04,748/- AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 155(14) OF THE ACT. 11. LIKEWISE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION FILED U/S 154 DATED 4.1.2011 HAD POINTED OUT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 155(14) AND HAD ALSO INTIMATED THAT INCOME FROM WHICH TAX H AS BEEN DEDUCTED WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ON 18.9.2009 HAD THE PARTICULARS OF TDS DEDUCTED AND PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 139(5) PERMITS THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A REVISED RETURN WHEN ANY AMOUNT O R WRONG STATEMENT WAS DISCOVERED BY IT. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO CONSIDER THE REVISED RETURN AND DIRECT THE AO TO MA KE JUST ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FURNISHED THEREIN. INVOKING TH AT POWER THE LD. CIT(A) IN OUR VIEW HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE AS SESSEES CLAIM FOR TDS CREDIT ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 7 OF RS. 8587962/- AS PER LAW BASED ON THE REVISED RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.9.2009 AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 155( 14) OF THE I.T. ACT. 12. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR SU PPORTS THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE CASE OF GLORIC INVESTMENT LTD. VS. D DIT (SUPRA) ASSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON 26.1 2.2002 DECLARING NIL INCOME CLAIMING BENEFIT OF DTAA AND ALSO CLAIMING REFUND O F TDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 LACS ODD-REFUND GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT VIDE INTI MATION U/S 143(1). LATER ON ASSESSEE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS YET ANOTHER TDS CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE SUM OF RS. 2 LAC ODD. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED REFUND IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 ON 31.3.2004 ENCLOSING ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE. YET A NOTHER APPLICATION FOR REFUND WAS MADE U/S 155(14) ON 17.1.2005. IN THE MEANWHILE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE DECLARED SAME INCOME BUT CLAIMING ADDITIONAL REFUND OF RS. 2 LACS ODD. INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ASSESSED AT NIL IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GRANTING REFUND OF RS. 2 LACS ODD. LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST NON-G RANT OF REFUND. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS HELD THAT PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. V. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LIMITED. 198 ITR 297 (SC.), SUCH TAX PAID BY ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE RETAINED WITHOUT SH OWING THAT IT WAS DUE FROM ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 8 ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE REF UND APPLICATION MADE ON 31.3.2004 AND APPLICATION FILED U/S 155(14) WERE IN TIME, HENCE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO GET REFUND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THA T THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS AND ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DIGITAL GLOBAL SOFT LTD. (SUPRA). THE CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS FAILURE TO PRODUCE CERTIFICATE OF DEDUCTION. PR OVISION FOR PERMITTING RECTIFICATION U/S 155(14) WERE NOT IN FORCE AT TIME OF RECTIFICAT ION BUT IT CAME IN FORCE AT TIME OF REVISION BY LD. COMMISSIONER. THE HONBLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT ORDER OF RECTIFICATION WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVISED. IN THAT CASE ALSO ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED REFUND FOR NON-A VAILABILITY OF CERTIFICATE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. CERTIFICATES PRODUCED LATER AN D RECTIFICATION ORDER ALLOWING CREDIT ON THE BASIS THEREOF REMAINED THE SUBJECT MA TTER OF REVISION BY THE LD. CIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE CLAIM IN RETURN. THE AO HAD DETERMINED THE REFUND OF RS. 1,08,66,716/- TO THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS. 1,36,35,634/- HE GAVE C REDIT ONLY TO A SUM OF RS. 38,14,844/- TOWARDS TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE ASS ESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE INTIMATION ON THE GROUND THAT CREDIT FOR THE EN TIRE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS NOT GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A T THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN, CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 19,44,692/- WAS NOT CLAIMED SINCE RELEVANT TDS CERTIFICATE WERE NOT AVA ILABLE. THE AO U/S 154 ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 9 RECTIFIED THE INTIMATION AND GAVE CREDIT TO A SUM O F RS. 1,45,98,652/- TOWARDS TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHICH INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,44,672/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER EXERCISING HIS POWER U/S 263 WITHDREW THE CREDIT GIVEN TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,44,672/-. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T AX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE PARTAKES OF THE CHARACTER OF ADVANCE TAX U/S 237, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO REFUND IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. T HE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT THE CREDIT FOR SUCH TAX WAS NOT GIVEN EARLIER. THE CERT IFICATE WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE INCOME COMPRISED IN SUCH CERTIFICATE HAD ALREAD Y SUFFERED TAXATION. THUS THERE WAS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR SUCH TAX. IT WAS HLED THAT THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE IF THE CREDIT OF SUCH TAX DEDUCTED WAS GIVEN. CREDIT WAS GIVEN ONLY IN RE SPECT OF SUMS WHICH WAS ALREADY DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AN D WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDIN GLY HELD THAT THERE WAS NEITHER ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF SECTION 154 NOR A NY PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY GIVING CREDIT. THUS IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER U/S 154 SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE COMMISSI ONER. THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS THAT AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 155(14) WERE NOT IN THE STATUTE BOOK ON THE DAY OF AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 154, THE ORDER PASSED ON 12.6.2001 COULD NOT BE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IT WAS ERRONEOUS. THE ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 10 AMENDMENT CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 1.6.2002. BUT ON THE DAY THE COMMISSIONER EXERCISED THIS POWER AND PASSED THE OR DER ON 31.7.2002, THE AMENDMENT WAS IN THE STATUTE BOOK. THEREFORE, ON 31 .7.2002 WHEN REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS EXERCISED THE COMMISSIONER COULD N OT HAVE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS ERRONEOUS AS ON THAT DAY THE AMENDED LAW PROVIDED FOR SUCH RECTIFICATION. THE HONBLE HI GH COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT A LAWFUL AMOUNT DUE TO THE GOVER NMENT AND IT WAS AN AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFUNDED TO THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDICAPPED BY SUCH CERTIFICATE NOT BEING FORWA RDED TO IT AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE CLAIM, SUCH CLAIM WAS N OT MADE. THE MOMENT IT GOT POSSESSION OF THOSE CERTIFICATES WITHIN TWO YEARS F ROM THE DATE OF THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IT HAD PUT FORTH THE CLAIM. 13. IN THE CASE OF ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNI CATIONS CO. LTD. VS. ADIT (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 A SKING FOR RECTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BY GIVING CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATES FILED PRIOR TO PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO ACCEPTED APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION AND PASSED AN ORDER GIVING TAX CREDIT . AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPEN ED ON THE GROUND THAT EXCESSIVE RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE ON THE BAS IS OF TDS CERTIFICATES. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT S INCE ORDER ALLOWING CREDIT OF ITA NOS. 3488, 3489/DEL/2013 11 TDS WAS TRACEABLE TO SECTION 155(14) READ WITH SECT ION 154 AND BY CLAMING CREDIT FOR TDS COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED UNTRUE OR INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED U NTRUE OR INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME NOR COULD IT BE SAID BY ALLOWING CRED IT FOR TDS THE AO HAS GIVEN EXCESSIVE RELIEF, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE REOPENED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 147. 14. IN VIEW OF ABOVE CITED DECISIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE . THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 15. CONSEQUENTLY APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT